Actually he gets half this stuff wrong. This is perhaps his worst video yet. Britain was not more egalitarian it was a plutocratic oligarchy where the people had less protection than under the enlightened despots. Britain pretty much bypassed the enlightenment.
I think most high schools could improve their results simply by showing these videos and following the great discussion points that tie back to the present day.
@@TheDrumstickEmpire I was asking about the globe behind John on his left. Every week it opens with something inside that goes along with what John is talking about that he uses to make his point clear. The globe is there, but it didn't open.
It’s pretty hard to say that Britain didn’t suffer from religion based internal conflict and was not despotic in the eighteenth century. The Highland Clearances saw the king of Britain use his troops to cleanse Gaelic speaking Catholics and Presbyterians in Scotland for over a hundred years.
Reputation often doesn't match reality. Just like how today Americans celebrate their history as a melting pot while ignoring the treatment of Native Americans and black people. Also, as bad as Britain was, it was better at religious tolerance than most other countries at the time (except towards Catholics). In some countries, not following the state religion was a crime, so people had to practice in secret.
Also the french revolution is the same. Promise of reform lead to disgruntled nobles and then the monarchy backed down from the reforms which led to the people rising up. Marie Antionette was after all the sister of Josef II and was trying to succeed where he had failed.
I saw a tapestry at Blenheim Palace England (if I recall) where the dogs had human ears and horse hooves. The docent supposed that the artist was more familiar with those shapes so just ran with it. I suspect the same thing happened here. Creepy indeed!!
It was that century's equivalent of pasting a celebrity or well-known figure's face on a meme as a joke or reference. There were also generic face "types" that would represent different personalities or social positions. Most likely, the faces in that painting referenced people the artist wanted to call out or build sympathy for.
Jospeh’s reforms nearly tore the empire apart, not just the nobles but many peasants revolted against him too. His brother’s rollback of the reforms saved Austria from collapse.
Worth mentioning that absolute monarchs were not exactly ruling alone, then just like now you needed to control and appease the keys to power else the keys would find someone else to appease them and you would lose your power. It's completely possible that most of these great rulers like Frederick and Catherine were fully on board with the enlightenment ideas but really the best thing they could do about it was to lead by example and then hope the aristocracy(whom's support they needed) would follow suit. The struggle between rulers and different sets of keys is pretty much the story of all civilization, from dictatorships to democracies. No man rules alone.
11:13 This is particularly interesting to me because in IB history of the Americas we are taught the opposite. As I learned maybe wrongly, that the Bourbon reforms blocked and took away the creole or people of Spanish descent positions in the Spanish colonies clergy, political offices, and army.
Maybe you should have talked about Sweden in this? Sweden had parliamentary rule for most of the 18th century, but King Gustav III became an autocratic monarch after a coup, though he tried to be an enlightened ruler
Parliamentary rule in this period means a noble or plutocratic oligarchy though. Gustav III was aside from his disastrous war (which there had been counterparts too during the parliamentary era) a golden age for the people, because he scaled back the power of the nobility. Hence why they murdered him.
It’s still pretty important because Pombal was considered the first head of a government to institute government controlled natural disaster relief when the 1755 Lisbon earthquake hit, and as a result set the precedent for disaster relief efforts after it. This issue will only continue to become more relevant with climate change being the way it is, so i would argue it is good for the public to have an idea of what to point at as a good role model when they ask their leaders to provide aid.
Sebastião de Carvalho e Melo is a Secretary of State closely associated with controversy, due to the persecution and exile of the Jesuits from Portugal, and the public torture and execution of the important Távora family who allegedly tried to murder King Joseph I. However, John should have still talked about the reconstruction of Lisbon after the earthquake, and the abolishment of slavery in Continental Portugal and other Enlightened measures he took during his time in power, before he was eventually exiled by Queen Maria I (who hated the man) to the province of Pombal, where he died in a poor house with no luxuries.
Concepts of associations and unions and work comp groups…. The multi sector connections surrounding benefits is quite stark… but stake holder economics is not something we can “cut a check” to… what’s a check again…. The recognition of freedom, liberty and social compacts and how the connected nature and collaboration and competition… it matter. We are beholden to those we serve.
I kinda think people are quite often to misunderstood Aristocracy with Monarchy. While in practice the two are almost inseparable, conceptually speaking they are not the same thing. To put it simply, the original concept of Aristocracy would be that the best people are the one who rule the country; while Monarchy is a country that govern by a royal family (which is not always the best of the citizen).
SO I discovered Crash Course a few days ago, binged a ton of world history videos from 2012 and then I found this in my recommend from 15h ago and let me tell you that I am so shaken up from seeing John Greene. I did not expect this. 😱😱
In the end, history repeats itself when it comes to making sweeping social changes. Enough change to increase the efficiency of government, placating the citizens, but not too much as to diminish the power they already have.
Privacy, transparency and proper oversight… change management and realities of if we do this… that happens… or more to the points. This leads to some of this some of that and more of this but less of them or stuff… Rights of individuals and groups. Space to work. Iron sharpens iron… health, climate and tools. Fractionated work. Acute and systemic.
When people talk about Britain being so enlightened during the enlightenment - why don't they ever take into account how unenlightened and despotic they were in the Scottish highlands and in Ireland? John talks about how there was a "multiplicity of religions", and religious toleration - but this isn't true: There was a state church (Anglicanism) and catholic emancipation in Ireland didn't happen until 1829, long after the peak of the enlightenment. Other trampling of rights included those of language (most of Ireland and much of Scotland spoke Gaelic languages back then) and any testimony given in court through these languages was not considered valid evidence - many people were hung simply because they didn't speak English and couldn't protest their innocence.
dyn01234567. History is complicated. For example the Catholic Church was the Islam of the times, viscous and cruel. At the time of the Catholic Queen Mary (Bloody Mary) many non-Catholics were executed, many burned at the stake, simply because they were not Catholic. Tens of thousands of French Protestants fled to non-Catholic countries including England after utterly ruthless massacres carried out by Catholics. The refugees were known as Huguenots and so many fled here they became important to our history. Even today Catholic countries tend to be backward and slow to democratise. Note Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy) became democracies only in living memory. Same in South America, backward to this very day, while religion controlled North America is rich and advanced. It’s not surprising the English were fearful of Catholic influence. The Catholic Church even executed people for providing rational explanations for natural events. While people were tortured, executed etc in Southern Europe for saying the Earth orbits the sun, people in England were explaining why the earth orbits the sun. Even in modern times, Ireland was held in a terrible grip by the Church. See the film Philomena (which is true) about modern Catholic Ireland. As for the Scots, again complicated. The Scottish Clan system (worse than the feudal system in England) persisted well into the eighteenth century, even after the act of union of 1707. Human nature is strange. People hate those who help them. I hadn’t heard of people being executed simply because they didn’t speak English. I wonder when that was. Don’t forget the rule of rational law was well established in England by the 1700s. That’s why England became the first country to permanently outlaw slavery in 1772.
@@maxmullen6337 I can only assume that this is a troll comment. Comments like "Human nature is strange. People hate those who help them." are a dead giveaway. People tend to hate people who brutalise them, persecute them, starve them and systematically destroy their culture. But speaking of starving - I'm going to let this troll go hungry.
dyn01234567. I have to assume you are young. You don’t know anything that hasn’t been told to you and you haven’t yet realised that “conventional wisdom” is often bollocks. In my day it was said women weren’t particularly interested in sex. They wanted to get married and have children and sex was something they accepted as part of the deal. All of us young lads thought our girlfriends were exceptional because they seemed very interested. Now we know that if anything women are more highly sexed than men, and certainly more extreme or animalistic. There was even a scientific explanation for woman not being promiscuous like men. If you want I can explain it to you. I remember the war. Can you guess whom we disliked most of all the countries involved? Germany? France? No it was America. No one speaks of it now but there were banners everywhere. GO HOME YANK they said. For every “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish” posters which you will have heard of, there were twenty Go home yank posters. (And the no blacks etc etc weren’t what you have been told they were.) So why were we anti-American? It was because we needed them and without them we would have lost the war. They helped us. So we didn’t like to admit it and were resentful. Why do you think the Scots want independence? They hate the English that’s why. They say they want independence but want to be in the EU at the same time. So where’s the independence in that? There isn’t. They just resent England being much bigger and important than them. And the Chinese have a saying that goes back millennia. “Why do you hate me? I have never helped you.” Or words to that effect. If you don’t understand human nature you need to get a grip and grow up. And all those people (usually left wing) who claim to be so lovely and kind and wonderful are the biggest crooks of all. I learnt that when I was about ten!!! Genuine people don’t go on about it.
9:00 He was also the brother of Marie Antoinette and it was her mother and brother she sought to emulated when she badgered Louis into calling the general estates. That backfired stupendously but she gets a lot of blame when she was perhaps the only person who could see the writing on the wall, it was just to little to late. Not that you will mention that, as skewed as your telling is I have no doubt you will make Robespierre out to be the hero.
In fact, it was quite the opposite with Joseph II and the serfdom - Joseph abolished serfdom in 1781, turning serfs into subjects (and citizens indeed), while retaining the mandatory work for the landowner (until 1848). However, the mandatory work was very limited since Joseph's reforms and the person could choose to pay a fee instead.
They were all real ones. John is being far to hard on them and far to nice to the oligarchy of Britain. But it's not so strange, he follows an american syllabus and the american system is heavily inspired by the British one.
I love this to much but comming here right after Crash Course American History and seeing John not speaking at the speed of light is so funny to me. Anyways lots of love and wish me luck on my University exam on American History next week!
Not sure if this is the case in English, but in the other two languages I speak - German and Polish - they are not called "enlightened monarchs" but rather "enlightened absolute monarchs" (German also uses "enlightened despots" sometimes). So the juxtaposition is in the name itself.
1:30 That's very much moving all enlightenment thinkers into one box, what Montesquieu disliked despots so all enlightenment thinkers obviously did, except not they did not, you are for an example wrong about Voltraire who was a big fan on enlightened despots often comparing them favourably to republics.
I mean let's not get too wild about Voltaire, the guy was so vilifying and hateful towards Jews and Muslims that he even shocked his contemporaries. Just because a thinker has some enlightenment ideas, doesn't mean they're rosy and all about tolerance.
Luther was also super antisemitic but his ideas of the church without corruption, idea of self-literate believers and not bowing down to Rome were also positively influential.
@@eruno_ Good point to both of you tbh. Martin Luther, as far as I recall, called Jews devils, Muslims the scourge of God (a la Huns), the Pope the antichrist, etc. I might be mixing up Jews and Muslims there, not sure. But, of course, as a Sunni Muslim, I agree with plenty of his theological arguments. Definitely, people can have good and bad ideas, I just think both should be remembered so we don't risk idolizing anybody.
You may say whatever you want but Britans political system was NOT destroyed and subverted through diversity and internal conflicts only because powers that would benefit from internal turmoil were physically bared form intervention on British soil by the fact that Britain is a ISLAND. Unlike Poland-Lithuania where every internal conflict between groups was exploited and if necessary supported by military interventions in order to destabilize any semblance of order and governance. Britain had one big civil war and then the system stabilized they were not invaded in almost a 1000 years ... Poland was invaded in last 400 years 47 times ... that's an average invasion every 10 years ... how can you build a stable political and economic system if you know every 10 years all you have will be destroyed and robed from you ?
4:30 Voltarie was friends with people he strongly disagreed with and heavily criticized because civilized intellectual debate with people we deeply disagree with is the way things should ALWAYS be! By being friends and having conversations with people who endorsed what he despised is how he influenced them and caused them to see his side. He gave a voice to the disenfranchised and intelligently debated FOR the people who couldn't do that themselves. If he were to ignore and refuse to debate or correspond or be friends with anyone he disagreed with he would have lost the chance for his opinion to be heard and advocated for. In today's society many people refuse to listen to or be friends with (much less debate) those they disagree with because of the very WRONG assumption that those you disagree with are evil Nazis and horrible people. INSTEAD of how it really is, that most people have good intentions and good reasons for believing what they believe. MOST people aren't evil Nazis, just good people who believe differently than you do and truly believe what is best for the government or society is the opposite of what you believe. Voltaire's strategy and way of discussing and engaging with people who believed things he thought were evil is the BEST and ONLY way to behave in an enlightened society! You cannot convince the other side that your beliefs are right if you refuse to engage with or associate with them at all and if you just call them names instead of presenting your point of view in an intelligent way. NO one is going to listen or take seriously anything you say the second you resort to name calling.
Monarchs did not empower nobles for the lols, it being "evil" or their kinship to them. They did so to keep them quiet and loyal, as they were a significant force within any country. Without concessions to the nobles other reforms would be harder or impossible to implement. Also many nobles still held important administrative positions. The only way to get things done without some concessions to the nobility is to make a new nobility from scratch(well usually members of the gentry) and doing that requires absolute power.... and a lot of paperwork.
@@eruno_ cities are now hedonistic places and rural places have bears who go on the streets, also that could lead to anarchy and the neighbours will attack you if you give them the opportunity.
"They did so to keep them quiet and loyal, as they were a significant force within any country." Err... they mentioned exactly that in the video (when they talked about Frederick and the junkers). Only briefly, but they never claimed the monarchs did it dor the lulz.
@@varana "he rewarded loyal nobles" is not quite the same as "in order to pass his reforms he pacified the nobles with concessions". While you're not wrong, I think CC does put forth a somewhat detached depiction of the situation, which, while understandable is also a bit naive.
Fun fact Jozef II wanted his reforms for all his subject lands. Including modern day Belgium where he wanted to turn back regional autonomy and forcing to make German the primary language. That led to the region revolting and being a short lived pre cursor of Belgium for 1 year Be sure to look up the Brabant revolution and the United Belgian States.
7:05 Actually the ones who had a standing army were the British most of Europe moved to conscription systems in this era. Army by the people for the people.
I think the likes of Catherine and frederick were a bit pragmatic in the ideas of the enlightenment maybe even being sympathetic to the philosophical cause but knowing the couldn't both achieve a enlightened state and going to war with the aristocrats and keeping a strong enough nation that could fend off less enlightened states around them
I think one needs to take into accound that an absolutist monarch is not truly an absolute monarch and needs to cooperate throu laws and gifts with the other nobles.
Really helpful but I need to do my assignment but I need to put reference but reference from youtube I not acceptable 😂 so what reference do u guys follow????
“During this age of ever improving weaponry” ... uh oh, I sure hope that these future weapons contribute to some future intra continental conflict with new weaponry contributing to death hitherto unknown
Vishesh Verma Totally agree, a very important conflict that gets skipped over a lot in my opinion. It was my research project in college and found it extremely interesting and had a lot at stake.
The WoSS was the first world war in a way: a small inheritance dispute between an austrian and basque family caused the whole of Europe to pludge into war, and the fighting was even taken to the colonies.
I shudder to think what horrors await us when you discuss the revolution(s). We're fast approaching one of my least favorite periods in history even with my barely adequate knowledge... even if it is supposedly-evil aristocrats getting murdered, it's still murder and it makes me really, really sad.
If Louis XVI had agreed to share power with a popularly elected parliament, he probably would have survived and kept his power. Today, we may see the French Revolution similarly to the British "Glorious Revolution" which established the same
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Ive learned so much from this channel post high school its incredible. Thank you for putting out free knowledge. Much love from Indianapolis
same. thank you to the wonderful people who worked on this channel.
Actually he gets half this stuff wrong. This is perhaps his worst video yet. Britain was not more egalitarian it was a plutocratic oligarchy where the people had less protection than under the enlightened despots. Britain pretty much bypassed the enlightenment.
@@MistarZtv u
Glad that Joseph II got his due in this video. Enlightened rule is never appreciated until it’s gone
Because of him, Mozart didn't get a proper grave. Sigh....
@@wisdomleader85 btw, love your name xD
I think most high schools could improve their results simply by showing these videos and following the great discussion points that tie back to the present day.
Did I miss the globe opening???
I don't think it did. That's why I came down.
No, the globe (if your talking about the theatre) opened in 1997 hope this helps
@@TheDrumstickEmpire I was asking about the globe behind John on his left. Every week it opens with something inside that goes along with what John is talking about that he uses to make his point clear. The globe is there, but it didn't open.
Then I’m not sure
I stopped watching after episode 7 and have only just returned
...Mr. Green, you're my pick to replace Alex Trebek on Jeopardy.
Who else read it like 'Me from the past'?
Trebek has exquisite pronunciation of foreign words. Green? Not so much.
David Mann Alex is Canadian, ergo he's somewhat fluent in French. Who would you pick for a replacement?
It’s pretty hard to say that Britain didn’t suffer from religion based internal conflict and was not despotic in the eighteenth century. The Highland Clearances saw the king of Britain use his troops to cleanse Gaelic speaking Catholics and Presbyterians in Scotland for over a hundred years.
Reputation often doesn't match reality. Just like how today Americans celebrate their history as a melting pot while ignoring the treatment of Native Americans and black people. Also, as bad as Britain was, it was better at religious tolerance than most other countries at the time (except towards Catholics). In some countries, not following the state religion was a crime, so people had to practice in secret.
@@pendlera2959 Americans do not ignore their treatment of natives or black people. This is false.
Josef II is the reason why other monarchs picked and choose what to impliment and took perticular care to reward the aristocracy.
Also the french revolution is the same. Promise of reform lead to disgruntled nobles and then the monarchy backed down from the reforms which led to the people rising up. Marie Antionette was after all the sister of Josef II and was trying to succeed where he had failed.
Oooo, that felt like a warning, John. That sent shivers down my spine.
8:58 Why do those dogs have people faces?
2:15 that face (second from the left) also creeped me out
bad artist, possibly :-)
I saw a tapestry at Blenheim Palace England (if I recall) where the dogs had human ears and horse hooves. The docent supposed that the artist was more familiar with those shapes so just ran with it. I suspect the same thing happened here. Creepy indeed!!
It was that century's equivalent of pasting a celebrity or well-known figure's face on a meme as a joke or reference. There were also generic face "types" that would represent different personalities or social positions. Most likely, the faces in that painting referenced people the artist wanted to call out or build sympathy for.
@@pendlera2959 Like Michaelangelo putting the cardinal he disliked in the pits of hell in the "Last Judgement," lol
I wonder how Austria would have looked like during the 19th and early 20th century, if the reforms of Joseph II weren't reversed.
It would have disintegrated
Jospeh’s reforms nearly tore the empire apart, not just the nobles but many peasants revolted against him too. His brother’s rollback of the reforms saved Austria from collapse.
My name is Ozyamandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Worth mentioning that absolute monarchs were not exactly ruling alone, then just like now you needed to control and appease the keys to power else the keys would find someone else to appease them and you would lose your power. It's completely possible that most of these great rulers like Frederick and Catherine were fully on board with the enlightenment ideas but really the best thing they could do about it was to lead by example and then hope the aristocracy(whom's support they needed) would follow suit.
The struggle between rulers and different sets of keys is pretty much the story of all civilization, from dictatorships to democracies. No man rules alone.
Hey,thank you for talking about Josef II. Sadly he,as most Habsburgs are, is very underrepresentet in the online history community.
Dude, you are the reason I get through school. Thanks for the amazing content, especially the animations, they definitely help remember things.
I really like the idea of Voltaire as a influenzer. So ...
For somebody who's a "classical liberal", he sure has a lot of conservative friends.
So happy that you're still making videos John! I absolutely loved this channel in college and its amazing that its still going on :)
11:13 This is particularly interesting to me because in IB history of the Americas we are taught the opposite. As I learned maybe wrongly, that the Bourbon reforms blocked and took away the creole or people of Spanish descent positions in the Spanish colonies clergy, political offices, and army.
I'm so excited for the Napoleonic Wars and the British Empire! I hope they do a whole video on each. Keep up the good work!
Always psyched when I see a new vid posted
Can't wait for French revolution and Napoleon stuff!!
Maybe you should have talked about Sweden in this? Sweden had parliamentary rule for most of the 18th century, but King Gustav III became an autocratic monarch after a coup, though he tried to be an enlightened ruler
Parliamentary rule in this period means a noble or plutocratic oligarchy though. Gustav III was aside from his disastrous war (which there had been counterparts too during the parliamentary era) a golden age for the people, because he scaled back the power of the nobility. Hence why they murdered him.
You should have talked about Portugal and their enlightenment period under the government of Pombal
The problem is that most of Portugal was happening outside Europe. Portugal only really came back to Europe in 1974.
It’s still pretty important because Pombal was considered the first head of a government to institute government controlled natural disaster relief when the 1755 Lisbon earthquake hit, and as a result set the precedent for disaster relief efforts after it. This issue will only continue to become more relevant with climate change being the way it is, so i would argue it is good for the public to have an idea of what to point at as a good role model when they ask their leaders to provide aid.
Not Portuguese, but fully agree! I've even heard of that, and my knowledge of Portuguese history is very limited indeed.
Portugal didn't "come back to europe in 1974". It was always in Europe, but no one talks about it.
Sebastião de Carvalho e Melo is a Secretary of State closely associated with controversy, due to the persecution and exile of the Jesuits from Portugal, and the public torture and execution of the important Távora family who allegedly tried to murder King Joseph I. However, John should have still talked about the reconstruction of Lisbon after the earthquake, and the abolishment of slavery in Continental Portugal and other Enlightened measures he took during his time in power, before he was eventually exiled by Queen Maria I (who hated the man) to the province of Pombal, where he died in a poor house with no luxuries.
why does it makes so happy to see John Green uploading videos?
Concepts of associations and unions and work comp groups…. The multi sector connections surrounding benefits is quite stark… but stake holder economics is not something we can “cut a check” to… what’s a check again….
The recognition of freedom, liberty and social compacts and how the connected nature and collaboration and competition… it matter. We are beholden to those we serve.
I kinda think people are quite often to misunderstood Aristocracy with Monarchy. While in practice the two are almost inseparable, conceptually speaking they are not the same thing. To put it simply, the original concept of Aristocracy would be that the best people are the one who rule the country; while Monarchy is a country that govern by a royal family (which is not always the best of the citizen).
HEADS UP for the next episode. Like, literally, on pikes.
Omg I was watching the old crash course about Jefferson. Then I came to this one and John green looks so different.
From philosophical point of view, it’s the same since the Essence is still there.
Thanks for including the Bourbon Reforms.
SO I discovered Crash Course a few days ago, binged a ton of world history videos from 2012 and then I found this in my recommend from 15h ago and let me tell you that I am so shaken up from seeing John Greene. I did not expect this. 😱😱
In the end, history repeats itself when it comes to making sweeping social changes. Enough change to increase the efficiency of government, placating the citizens, but not too much as to diminish the power they already have.
macrossMX Makes everything seem pretty useless when it ultimately never changes :/
But things change over time.
Privacy, transparency and proper oversight… change management and realities of if we do this… that happens… or more to the points. This leads to some of this some of that and more of this but less of them or stuff…
Rights of individuals and groups. Space to work. Iron sharpens iron… health, climate and tools. Fractionated work. Acute and systemic.
Not long until the Victorian Era :D
Not long until the 7 years war
You’ll get your flitch of bacon in due time!
Not long until the napoleonic wars
which to some might think of pax britannica-but in reality it was the time of the most cruel empire in history
Not long until the series is over so I can overview it!!!
When people talk about Britain being so enlightened during the enlightenment - why don't they ever take into account how unenlightened and despotic they were in the Scottish highlands and in Ireland? John talks about how there was a "multiplicity of religions", and religious toleration - but this isn't true: There was a state church (Anglicanism) and catholic emancipation in Ireland didn't happen until 1829, long after the peak of the enlightenment.
Other trampling of rights included those of language (most of Ireland and much of Scotland spoke Gaelic languages back then) and any testimony given in court through these languages was not considered valid evidence - many people were hung simply because they didn't speak English and couldn't protest their innocence.
It is called CRASH Course.
dyn01234567. History is complicated.
For example the Catholic Church was the Islam of the times, viscous and cruel. At the time of the Catholic Queen Mary (Bloody Mary) many non-Catholics were executed, many burned at the stake, simply because they were not Catholic. Tens of thousands of French Protestants fled to non-Catholic countries including England after utterly ruthless massacres carried out by Catholics. The refugees were known as Huguenots and so many fled here they became important to our history.
Even today Catholic countries tend to be backward and slow to democratise. Note Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy) became democracies only in living memory. Same in South America, backward to this very day, while religion controlled North America is rich and advanced.
It’s not surprising the English were fearful of Catholic influence. The Catholic Church even executed people for providing rational explanations for natural events. While people were tortured, executed etc in Southern Europe for saying the Earth orbits the sun, people in England were explaining why the earth orbits the sun.
Even in modern times, Ireland was held in a terrible grip by the Church. See the film Philomena (which is true) about modern Catholic Ireland.
As for the Scots, again complicated. The Scottish Clan system (worse than the feudal system in England) persisted well into the eighteenth century, even after the act of union of 1707.
Human nature is strange. People hate those who help them.
I hadn’t heard of people being executed simply because they didn’t speak English. I wonder when that was. Don’t forget the rule of rational law was well established in England by the 1700s. That’s why England became the first country to permanently outlaw slavery in 1772.
@@maxmullen6337 I can only assume that this is a troll comment.
Comments like "Human nature is strange. People hate those who help them." are a dead giveaway.
People tend to hate people who brutalise them, persecute them, starve them and systematically destroy their culture.
But speaking of starving - I'm going to let this troll go hungry.
dyn01234567. I have to assume you are young. You don’t know anything that hasn’t been told to you and you haven’t yet realised that “conventional wisdom” is often bollocks.
In my day it was said women weren’t particularly interested in sex. They wanted to get married and have children and sex was something they accepted as part of the deal. All of us young lads thought our girlfriends were exceptional because they seemed very interested. Now we know that if anything women are more highly sexed than men, and certainly more extreme or animalistic. There was even a scientific explanation for woman not being promiscuous like men. If you want I can explain it to you.
I remember the war. Can you guess whom we disliked most of all the countries involved? Germany? France?
No it was America. No one speaks of it now but there were banners everywhere. GO HOME YANK they said. For every “no blacks, no dogs, no Irish” posters which you will have heard of, there were twenty Go home yank posters. (And the no blacks etc etc weren’t what you have been told they were.)
So why were we anti-American? It was because we needed them and without them we would have lost the war. They helped us. So we didn’t like to admit it and were resentful.
Why do you think the Scots want independence? They hate the English that’s why. They say they want independence but want to be in the EU at the same time. So where’s the independence in that? There isn’t. They just resent England being much bigger and important than them.
And the Chinese have a saying that goes back millennia. “Why do you hate me? I have never helped you.” Or words to that effect.
If you don’t understand human nature you need to get a grip and grow up.
And all those people (usually left wing) who claim to be so lovely and kind and wonderful are the biggest crooks of all. I learnt that when I was about ten!!! Genuine people don’t go on about it.
@@maxmullen6337 LoL. Old troll - it's a new angle XD
Yeah, sure go on. Explain to me your ancient trollish wisdom!
I am fascinated by history both it's glory and darkness/devastation it had in it. Can someone recommend me any books to read?
Really good one.
9:00 He was also the brother of Marie Antoinette and it was her mother and brother she sought to emulated when she badgered Louis into calling the general estates. That backfired stupendously but she gets a lot of blame when she was perhaps the only person who could see the writing on the wall, it was just to little to late. Not that you will mention that, as skewed as your telling is I have no doubt you will make Robespierre out to be the hero.
In fact, it was quite the opposite with Joseph II and the serfdom - Joseph abolished serfdom in 1781, turning serfs into subjects (and citizens indeed), while retaining the mandatory work for the landowner (until 1848). However, the mandatory work was very limited since Joseph's reforms and the person could choose to pay a fee instead.
It would be awesome to see a video about the partitions of Poland
Joseph II was actually a real one huh
They were all real ones. John is being far to hard on them and far to nice to the oligarchy of Britain. But it's not so strange, he follows an american syllabus and the american system is heavily inspired by the British one.
Fredrik Dunge I’m salty that he didn’t mention Frederick introducing the potato to the Prussians, that’s one of his biggest achievements!
"bread cut with sawdust" is a line that hits me.
Many mass-produced bread nowadays has "cellulose" which is often woodpulp.
Who else watches new crashcourse at 1.5 times speed to get that old Crashcourse feel?
Lol
LOL. I thought it was just a silly idea. But actually 1.25 speed is perfect....
it is nice how much hes slowed down. helps that youtube in general favors longer videos now
I watched the old ones on 1.5 do I prefer two.
Favourite episode yet.
Yessss!! The French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte!
!
I love this to much but comming here right after Crash Course American History and seeing John not speaking at the speed of light is so funny to me. Anyways lots of love and wish me luck on my University exam on American History next week!
I miss the old vibrant John Green who was so carefree and fun. He made learning fun. Please come back John Green!
Catherine was not just great, she was THE great
I love John Green's voice. It's so soothing to me.
Only one problem... It's 2:30am in Europe...
:) thanks for these great videos Crash Course
Not sure if this is the case in English, but in the other two languages I speak - German and Polish - they are not called "enlightened monarchs" but rather "enlightened absolute monarchs" (German also uses "enlightened despots" sometimes). So the juxtaposition is in the name itself.
berlineczka in croatian you would say “prosvijećeni apsolutizam” it’s basically enlighted apsolutism
I am so looking forward for the next video!!!:)
An episode without the globe opening ! Very good
Beautifuly done. Thank you!
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 13:15
Tech and education on and around bridges (arcs) of history…. So many things.
In the next episode the heads will roll!
Are you going to do another season of crash course literature?
What about Marquês de Pombal?
1:30 That's very much moving all enlightenment thinkers into one box, what Montesquieu disliked despots so all enlightenment thinkers obviously did, except not they did not, you are for an example wrong about Voltraire who was a big fan on enlightened despots often comparing them favourably to republics.
Thanks for teaching!
You haven’t talked about Marquis of Pombal, but last episode you spoke a lot about the Lisbon’s earthquake, so it’s ok xD
I mean let's not get too wild about Voltaire, the guy was so vilifying and hateful towards Jews and Muslims that he even shocked his contemporaries. Just because a thinker has some enlightenment ideas, doesn't mean they're rosy and all about tolerance.
Voltaire is hilarious! He cracked the national lottery of France!
Luther was also super antisemitic but his ideas of the church without corruption, idea of self-literate believers and not bowing down to Rome were also positively influential.
@@eruno_ if ignoring the religious wars that came after.
@@eruno_ Good point to both of you tbh. Martin Luther, as far as I recall, called Jews devils, Muslims the scourge of God (a la Huns), the Pope the antichrist, etc. I might be mixing up Jews and Muslims there, not sure.
But, of course, as a Sunni Muslim, I agree with plenty of his theological arguments. Definitely, people can have good and bad ideas, I just think both should be remembered so we don't risk idolizing anybody.
Oh boo hoo what ever shall the muslims and jews do! A 17th century philosopher didnt like them waaaahhhh!
- talks about frederick the great
- talks about catherine the great
- talks about maria theresa
*cries in polish*
Oh man, I'm so hype for the next crash course, I'm gunna watch Fight Club.
You may say whatever you want but Britans political system was NOT destroyed and subverted through diversity and internal conflicts only because powers that would benefit from internal turmoil were physically bared form intervention on British soil by the fact that Britain is a ISLAND.
Unlike Poland-Lithuania where every internal conflict between groups was exploited and if necessary supported by military interventions in order to destabilize any semblance of order and governance.
Britain had one big civil war and then the system stabilized they were not invaded in almost a 1000 years ... Poland was invaded in last 400 years 47 times ... that's an average invasion every 10 years ... how can you build a stable political and economic system if you know every 10 years all you have will be destroyed and robed from you ?
That is the argument used by Napoleon to justify why he doesn’t follow Washington’s foot step.
4:07 the map is wrong Prussia didn’t control upper selia yet
Frederick came into power in 1740. Prussia gained Silesia in 1742
Papertown?
it's mainly a matter of west Prussia, not Silesia. It happened much later in his reign, but it stil is correct
13:13 heads will roll, heads will roll
JOHN GREEN HAS CHANGED ALOT
hello
just wanted to say that
4:30 Voltarie was friends with people he strongly disagreed with and heavily criticized because civilized intellectual debate with people we deeply disagree with is the way things should ALWAYS be! By being friends and having conversations with people who endorsed what he despised is how he influenced them and caused them to see his side. He gave a voice to the disenfranchised and intelligently debated FOR the people who couldn't do that themselves. If he were to ignore and refuse to debate or correspond or be friends with anyone he disagreed with he would have lost the chance for his opinion to be heard and advocated for. In today's society many people refuse to listen to or be friends with (much less debate) those they disagree with because of the very WRONG assumption that those you disagree with are evil Nazis and horrible people. INSTEAD of how it really is, that most people have good intentions and good reasons for believing what they believe. MOST people aren't evil Nazis, just good people who believe differently than you do and truly believe what is best for the government or society is the opposite of what you believe. Voltaire's strategy and way of discussing and engaging with people who believed things he thought were evil is the BEST and ONLY way to behave in an enlightened society! You cannot convince the other side that your beliefs are right if you refuse to engage with or associate with them at all and if you just call them names instead of presenting your point of view in an intelligent way. NO one is going to listen or take seriously anything you say the second you resort to name calling.
Well put
Nah, he was sucking up to Frederick, Catherine, even Louis' XV mistresses.
Voltaire Did believe in Absolutism tho. he saw it as the best way to implement enlightenment ideas
So as Machiaveli.
This channel has taught me more about history in one episode than four years of high school history
Don't take any of this as facts without double checking it. He gets a lot wrong in this episode.
That sawdust bread is Whole Foods’ entire market strategy.
“Shut up and take my money!” -Whole Foods shoppers lol
I first learnt about Maria Theresa from Civ 5. Who says computer games aren't educational?
I watch this when I’m going to sleep
Monarchs did not empower nobles for the lols, it being "evil" or their kinship to them. They did so to keep them quiet and loyal, as they were a significant force within any country. Without concessions to the nobles other reforms would be harder or impossible to implement. Also many nobles still held important administrative positions. The only way to get things done without some concessions to the nobility is to make a new nobility from scratch(well usually members of the gentry) and doing that requires absolute power.... and a lot of paperwork.
or you know you can empower the 99% aka the peasants and urbanites instead.
@@eruno_ *laughs in monarch*
@@eruno_ cities are now hedonistic places and rural places have bears who go on the streets, also that could lead to anarchy and the neighbours will attack you if you give them the opportunity.
"They did so to keep them quiet and loyal, as they were a significant force within any country."
Err... they mentioned exactly that in the video (when they talked about Frederick and the junkers). Only briefly, but they never claimed the monarchs did it dor the lulz.
@@varana "he rewarded loyal nobles" is not quite the same as "in order to pass his reforms he pacified the nobles with concessions". While you're not wrong, I think CC does put forth a somewhat detached depiction of the situation, which, while understandable is also a bit naive.
Is french revolution coming up next ???
Fun fact Jozef II wanted his reforms for all his subject lands. Including modern day Belgium where he wanted to turn back regional autonomy and forcing to make German the primary language. That led to the region revolting and being a short lived pre cursor of Belgium for 1 year
Be sure to look up the Brabant revolution and the United Belgian States.
7:05 Actually the ones who had a standing army were the British most of Europe moved to conscription systems in this era. Army by the people for the people.
I think the likes of Catherine and frederick were a bit pragmatic in the ideas of the enlightenment maybe even being sympathetic to the philosophical cause but knowing the couldn't both achieve a enlightened state and going to war with the aristocrats and keeping a strong enough nation that could fend off less enlightened states around them
Joseph II got them lips! I'm jealous...
Anyone else miss the old set?
Louis the slightly above average
I think one needs to take into accound that an absolutist monarch is not truly an absolute monarch and needs to cooperate throu laws and gifts with the other nobles.
Türkçe altyazı koysanız ne güzel olur
Hey! Nice pronunciation of French!
Really helpful but
I need to do my assignment but I need to put reference but reference from youtube I not acceptable 😂 so what reference do u guys follow????
Read the description of the video
“During this age of ever improving weaponry” ... uh oh, I sure hope that these future weapons contribute to some future intra continental conflict with new weaponry contributing to death hitherto unknown
Educational!
But werent courts until a few years ago still not independent from the Monarch (at least in theory) in England?
Are going to talk about Gustav III?
Why did you skip the War of Spanish Succession?
Vishesh Verma Totally agree, a very important conflict that gets skipped over a lot in my opinion. It was my research project in college and found it extremely interesting and had a lot at stake.
The WoSS was the first world war in a way: a small inheritance dispute between an austrian and basque family caused the whole of Europe to pludge into war, and the fighting was even taken to the colonies.
@@hashaborgonja wasn't it between the Austrians and the French?
@@anjurachel4661 essentially everybody took a side because of the consequences of the inheritance. Even the french faught the English in the Americas.
@Conner Clark go to your room!
Oh boy. We're getting the French Revolution next, aren't we? This is... gonna be wild.
This whole series so far feels like a "How To Play EU IV" tutorial.
Credit to the game I suppose.
MAXIMUM ABSOLUTISM achieved
Now do Stallin's cook.
I shudder to think what horrors await us when you discuss the revolution(s). We're fast approaching one of my least favorite periods in history even with my barely adequate knowledge... even if it is supposedly-evil aristocrats getting murdered, it's still murder and it makes me really, really sad.
How about Ranjit Singh?
Nice
The center of the world never opened
Were Surfs punished if they left and if so, how?
Just as I was reading about the Enlightment, this pops-up. Thanks CC. 😁
If Louis XVI had agreed to share power with a popularly elected parliament, he probably would have survived and kept his power. Today, we may see the French Revolution similarly to the British "Glorious Revolution" which established the same
On what i know he was popular untill he tried to run to Austria and to start a war agains the rebels.